Summary: Mr X complained that the Council caused a delay in responding to his complaint about its children’s social care service. We have discontinued our investigation, because there is no worthwhile outcome we can achieve until Mr X receives the Council’s final response to his complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council has caused a delay in responding to his complaint about its children’s social care service. He says this has prevented him seeing his partner and newborn son (as existing restrictions on his contact with them have been prolonged by the delay).

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but we must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
4. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. The statutory guidance, ‘Getting the best from complaints’, sets out a three-stage procedure for complaints about certain aspects of children’s social care. I refer to this as ‘the statutory procedure’.
6. Parents can use this procedure to complain about their children’s social care assessment and support.
7. The benefit of the statutory procedure is that the parent gets an independent investigation of their complaint (at stage 2), and, if they wish, an independent review (at stage 3).
8. If a complainant wants to progress their complaint through all three stages of the statutory procedure, then they have the right to do so.
9. The Ombudsman normally expects councils (and complainants) to follow the full statutory procedure before involving us. A complaint can only be referred to the Ombudsman earlier if, following a robust stage two investigation, all significant parts of the complaint have been upheld.
10. Councils have 25 working days to respond to stage two complaints. However, in certain circumstances (such as if the complaint is particularly complicated), this can be extended to a maximum of 65 working days. If the complaint is submitted in writing, the ‘start date’ is when the complaint is made.
11. Mr X made his written stage 2 complaint in early December 2024, so the Council should have responded by late February 2025.
12. Instead, the investigation remains ongoing.
13. It appears the delay so far arose from the Council’s prolonged failure to identify an investigating officer. This has now been resolved. And I have seen no evidence that the investigating officer has caused further significant delays in her consideration of the complaint.
14. With this in mind, it would not be proportionate to recommend a fixed date for the Council’s stage 2 response. It should simply be issued without further delay.
15. This leaves only one potentially useful outcome which could be achieved by an Ombudsman investigation at this premature stage: a symbolic financial remedy to Mr X for the delay so far.
16. This is something which would be better addressed after the Council has sent
    Mr X its final complaint response (at which point, if there have been further delays, they could all be considered together).
17. Mr X has the right to return to us after receiving this final, stage 3 response. Until then, no worthwhile outcome would be achievable by our further involvement.

Back to top

Decision

18. I have discontinued my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman